United States v. Prochilo, 629 F.3d 264

ATF sting led to Prochilo's indictment for felon in possession; case hinges on testimony of a government cooperator.
Prochilo sought Brady material, focusing on impeachment, requesting entire cooperator relationship with the government and related materials.
District court ordered disclosure of all cooperator-related materials and later reaffirmed, including materials from other agencies.
District court then excluded the cooperator at trial after reconsideration; government appealed challenging the breadth of disclosure.
In Guerrero, sting led to arrest of Guerrero and others; witness impeachment materials were disclosed but motion to compel sought broader access; district court prohibited broader limitations.
Court reviews Brady rulings for abuse of discretion, requiring a specific showing that materials could contain favorable, material evidence and permitting in camera review only with proper showing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse Brady by ordering direct disclosure of all cooperator materials to Prochilo?	Prochilo argued for broadened access to all materials showing witness-government relationship.	The government contended it had disclosed all Brady material and in camera review was not warranted.	No; order to disclose all materials directly was not warranted.
Was there a basis for in camera review and disclosure based on a specific showing of favorable material evidence?	Prochilo claimed potential impeachment material exists in undisclosed files.	Government argued generalized requests are insufficient and had already revealed Brady material.	Insufficient showing; no in camera basis based on speculative claims.
Did Guerrero meet the standard for in camera review of cooperator materials?	Guerrero asserted access to all cooperator materials could reveal credibility issues.	Government maintained it disclosed Brady material and limited in camera review was not warranted.	Not at this stage; remand to allow particularized showing for possible in camera review.
Whether the Confrontation Clause argument independently supported the district court's order?	Guerrero argued Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause justified disclosure.	The issue is not properly grounded under the Confrontation Clause for disclosure in this context.	Incorrect; due process standard governs, not an independent Confrontation Clause basis.

Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1999) (favorable and material standard for Brady evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality standard for suppressed Brady evidence)
Ritchie v. Delaware, 480 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1987) (trial court may conduct limited in camera review; defense doesn't have broad right to government files)
Rosario-Peralta v. United States, 175 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 1999) (requires specific showing of usefulness of materials for in camera review)
Caro-Muniz v. United States, 406 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2005) (articulating basis for in camera review of cooperator materials)
Brandon v. United States, 17 F.3d 409 (1st Cir. 1994) (showing required for in camera inspection; not mere speculation)
Navarro v. United States, 737 F.2d 625 (7th Cir. 1984) (defendant must articulate possible favorable material in requested materials)
United States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2008) ( Brady determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)
United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (due process standard for disclosure of favorable evidence)